ML15238A702
| ML15238A702 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1982 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15238A703 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8212060310 | |
| Download: ML15238A702 (5) | |
Text
,OVEPBER 186 1992 DISTRIBUTION C
c k etFie1 Gray File+4 NRC PDR EBlackwood L PDR HOrnstein ORB#4 /Rdg Dockets Nos. 50-269, 50-270 DEisenhut and 50-287 OELD AEOD EHarmon-2 ACRS-10 Mr. H. B. Tucker TBarnhart-4 Vice President - Nuclear Production LSchneider Duke Power Company OGC P. 0. Box 33189 OPA 422 South Church Street DBrinkman Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 RDiggs ASLAB
Dear Hr. Tucker:
PWagner RIngram We have reviewed your August 30, 1982 rqquest for relief from Inservice Inspection (ISI) requirements of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for the Oconee Nuclear Station. Based on the findings of our review contained in the enclosed Evaluation of Relief Request, we agree that the specified requirements are impractical and that relief should be granted; but have, with the concurrence of members of your staff, excluded from your request sections of the containment spray system piping which penetrate the reactor building.
Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55 g)(6)(i), relief is granted from the ASME Code required volumetricexamination of the piping welds for: a) piping from valves BS-14 and BS'-19 to the containment spray hozzles, and b) Piping from the reactor building emergency sump to valves LP-19 and7ILP-20. In granting this relief, we determined thatthe Code requirements are impractical and that the relief is authorized by law, and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and istin the public interest giving due consider ation to the burden upon Duke Power if the requirements were imposed.
Our evaluation incorporates the same section numbering sequence used in oyr approval of your program issued on November 7, 1980, as supplemented by letters dated April 8, May 17 and July 14, 1982.
A copy of Notice of Granting Relief is also enclosed.
Sincerely, Wtl G12j G'IZD ZX~
8212060310 821116 John F. Stolz, Chief PDR ADOCK 05000269 Operating Reactors Branch #4 PDR Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
CK ex
- 1. Evaluation 3
1iy Am 8
s :ORB#4:D
-C-ORB#4:DL 0EL OFFICE SURNAMEb..
Ee*e t*
age,............
10 82 1 0//Qx/8 L
_____1_
lOI.2.t82~
2O~,8 1O,/828 DATE.
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OF FICIAL R ECORD COPY USGPO: 1981-335-960
Duke Power Company cc w/enclosure(s):
Mr. William L. Porter Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 33189 422 South Church Street Office of Intergovernmental Relations Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Honorable James M. Phinney County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Regional Radiation Representative EPA Region IV 345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308 William T. Orders Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 2, Box 610 Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 220, 7910 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Manager, LIS NUS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
DeBevoise & Liberman 1200 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 0
EVALUATION OF RELIEF REQUEST OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM DOCKETS NOS. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-287 II. Class 2 Components
- 4. Relief Request Relief from volumetric examination of piping welds in the following piping runs:
- a.
Piping from valves BS-1 and BS-2 to containment spray nozzles, and
ASME Code Section XI Requirement ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI, 1974 Edition, including 1975 Summer Addenda:
The examinations required by IWC-2520 shall be divided among the number of components of the same size and geometry in each of the multiple streams of a system which perform the same (or redundant) functions, such that the total examinations completed over the system's service lifetime will be equivalent to having performed 100% of the required examinations in one of the multiple streams of the system.
Systems or portions of systems with a single stream shall be examined such that 100% of the required examinations of the components will be completed over the system's service lifetime.
The areas shall include:
- a. circumferential butt welds at structural discontinuities.
- b. circumferential butt welds in piping within 3 pipe diameters of the centerline of rigid pipe anchors, or anchors at the penetration of the primary reactor containment, or at rigidly anchored components.
- c. longitudinal weld joints in pipe fittings (i.e., in tees, elbows, reducers).
- d. branch connection weld joints.
- e. pump casing and valve body weld joints.
This includes the weld metal and base metal for one-wall thickness beyond the edge of weld.
-2 Licensee Basis for Requesting Relief
- a. Design conditions listed for the containment spray headers from valves BS-1 and BS-2 to the spray nozzles are 200 psig at 3000F. Design conditions for the Reactor Building emergency sump suction lines are building pressure at 3000 F. The design pressures are, thus, within the limits for exemption under IWC-1220(a). The 300OF design temperature was applied due to the expected maximum temperature of 250aF in the Reactor Building sump following a Design Basis Accident.
The Reactor Building spray lines and Reactor Building sump lines have not been subjected to the design conditions noted and would only be operated in excess of 200'F for approximately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following a Design Basis Accident.
- b. The Reactor Building emergency sump lines are embedded in concrete and are inaccessible for the required examination..
The piping of the Reactor Building Spray System from valves BS-1 and BS-2, which runs vertically and adjacent to the reactor building wall to the spray nozzles at the building dome, makes the required examination difficult and dangerous to perform.
Therefore, the licensee requests that the subject piping be considered exempt from the requirements of Section XI, paragraph IWC-2520.
Alternate Examination No volumetric or surface examination will be performed on this piping.
Implementation Schedule This request will apply to the first ten-year interval for Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3.
Evaluation The piping for which relief is requested is required to be examined regardless of the design temperature and pressure in accordance with the ASME Code requirements as stated in 10 CFR 50 Part 55a(b)(2)(iv).
However, since this piping has never been exposed to the design.
conditions (200aF and 275 psig) below which components may be exempt from the examination requirements and would only experience the design temperature (but not pressure) for approximately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following a Design Basis Accident reasonable bases exist for granting relief.
In addition, in order to perform the volumetric examination of the piping welds in question; it would be necessary to:
- 1) remove the encasing concrete around the containment sump lines and 2) construct a scaffold assembly along the containment wall to allow access to the containment spray system piping.
Because these two prerequisites would involve an undue burden on the licensee, and in 2) above, would involve undue personnel safety risks, we conclude that the Code requirement is impractical and that relief should be granted.
-3 However, due to the importance of the containment spray system and ensuring the structural integrity of the containment, we requested and the licensee agreed to examine the sections of the containment spray system piping through the containment penetration to the inside containment isolation valves. Therefore, we have determined that relief should be granted from volumetric examination of the piping welds for: a) piping from valves BS-14 and BS-19 to the containment spray nozzles, and b) piping from the reactor building emergency sump to valves LP-19 and LP-20. The licensee has committed to examine the remaining portions of these systems in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Part 55a(b)(2)(iv).
Conclusions
- 1. Summary We have reviewed the above relief request and have determined that the Code requirement is impractical and that the relief request is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest giving due consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result if the requirement were imposed on the facility.
- 2. Environmental Consideration We have determined that the granting of relief does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that granting relief involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and that an environ mental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the granting of this relief.
- 3. Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) granting this relief does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, and therefore does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) the activities authorized by the grant of relief will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: November 16, 1982 The following NRC staff personnel contributed to this Evaluation:
P. C. Wagner.